A two-component framework captures cross-cultural similarities and differences in essentialist thinking about social categories

Abstract

Social essentialism is the intuitive assumption that members of social categories share underlying properties that determine category membership and cause observable regularities. We investigate cultural differences in social essentialism in the USA, Northern Ireland, and China. In Study 1, 106 undergraduates from the US and Northern Ireland rated 44 social categories on 9 scales representing distinct aspects of social essentialism. In Study 2, 157 undergraduates from the US and China rated 31 social categories on 6 scales. Results showed that a single two-component framework—describing variability in social categories with respect to perceived naturalness (objectivity, immutability) and cohesiveness (homogeneity, informativeness)—explained representations of social categories in all three cultures. Differences emerged as well; on average, American participants rated social categories as more natural and less cohesive than Northern Irish or Chinese participants. Moreover, specific social dimensions were seen as more natural in cultures where those dimensions had particular cultural salience (religion in Northern Ireland, home region in China). Together, these findings demonstrate cross-cultural similarities (a common two- component framework for representing social kinds, a common way to essentialize historically salient social dimensions) and differences (in the general extent to which social categories were perceived to be natural and cohesive) across disparate cultural groups.